Some questions about EQ mounts modified for our latititudes

Post by **weixing** » Sun Oct 12, 2003 2:16 pm

Hi,
For my case, hitting the tripod can be avoided, but you must carefully adjust the counter-weight and azimuth adjustment...

The counter-weight shaft is between the tripod... which is the same as the Sky-Watcher EQ3-2 manual.
Below is a image I take with the original counter-weight and with one vixen counter-weight.
Anyway, I'm looking for a 3.7kg Vixen counter-weight... anyone got one for sale ????....

Post by **Jim McGill** » Sun Oct 12, 2003 4:21 pm

Hi All,

Thanks for the questions on the modifications to the EQ3-2 by McGill.

Would like to take this opportunity to clarify.........

Suitability of EQ-1, EQ-2 and EQ-3-2 in Singapore:
As McGill mainly deals with Sky-Watcher mounts, we can only offer our advice on this brand:
All the above mentioned Sky-Watcher mounts imported by McGill are fit for use from latitudes +1 to +3. EQ-1 and EQ-2 would not experience any problems after any modification as the counterweights are similar in size to that of Vixen's. The EQ3-2 has to be modified according to McGill's proprietary method which we do not wish to divulge to the general public at this moment. Our experience after handling tens of the EQ3-2 mount is that the overall quality VARIES. You can get one which works very well, like that of Weixing's and the next moment, we have to do extra modifications to another one. Filing of the screws of the legs and other DIY methods have to be considered.

As for those who are considering doing further modifications to the modified EQ3-2 (such as doing an expensive pier) please kindly give Jim a call so that we can offer you some assistance. As almost all our customers are beginners who have limited budget, we do not want to increase the costs of upgrading as the improved performance might not be proportional to the money you're going to spend.

For your info, I've asked Synta, the manufacturer of Sky-Watcher products, to do a half pillar similar to that of Vixen's but they were not very keen..So you can consider getting the Vixen counterweights from us.
However at a no-frills price of less than S$500, the EQ3-2 is meant to be a beginner's mount which would at best be good only for visual work and short exposures. People seldom use this mount for long exposures. We mention this point to potential customers wanting to purchase this as a starter scope system, which is what it really is. However some customers really want the EQ3-2 to be an all-purpose mount capable of the most demanding type of astrophotography, which I think is overstretching its capability.

McGill's modified EQ3-2 mounts are available for FREE demo session and we can even loan one of these (and also the OTA) to you for a low fee should you want to try it in the comfort of your own backyard. The most important thing is for you to feel it as it is, whether you're prepared to overlook its weaknesses such as portability and likelihood for further finetuning.

Appreciate your various comments and complains. McGill can only get better in our service if customers continue to set high standards for us! Of course the best way to quell a rumour or clarify a complain is simply to contact us to check the story from our side.

I welcome all your enquiries. Thanks!

Dark Skies,
Jim, McGill
www.mcgill.com.sg

Post by **VinSnr** » Sun Oct 12, 2003 6:07 pm

weixing wrote:Hi,
For my case, hitting the tripod can be avoided, but you must carefully adjust the counter-weight and azimuth adjustment...
The counter-weight shaft is between the tripod... which is the same as the Sky-Watcher EQ3-2 manual.
Below is a image I take with the original counter-weight and with one vixen counter-weight.
Anyway, I'm looking for a 3.7kg Vixen counter-weight... anyone got one for sale ????....

Weixing, after seeing your photos, apparently something has been modified. Normally for a eq mount, the "North" should be on a leg.......NOT in between two legs like in your picture.

The weights and the counterweight shaft should be directly on top of the north leg, so that the north legs can support all the weight, giving the setup a more stable solution. For our case, when you have that, the weights and the leg will definitely hit, that's why we normally use a half-pier.

But for your mount, it seems that 'North" is in between two legs. This setup will only be stable if your scope is not front heavy. If it is, the mount can topple unless you tie the back leg (soth leg) with some weights.

Overall, it's a solution, but not one that can be use for astrophotography.

hlyf · Post by **hlyf** » Sun Oct 12, 2003 7:57 pm

i have the same scope.. the configuration is the same as in the manual: North between the legs, so that was not what was modified (so now we still don't know what is :!: . and i don't think it's possible to shift the north above one leg.. undid my mount and tried doing that after Sam told me before that that was the correct orientation, but... there's some.. blockage...

hannah

MooEy · Post by **MooEy** » Sun Oct 12, 2003 8:30 pm

hmm..concerning stablity and the north on one of the legs. i was wondering if any of u guys notice that every single vixen sp/gp mounts have their north on one of the legs and usually after a few years of usage, the mount will seem to tilting towards the north leg. so far i have played wif 4 sp mounts and 1 gp-d, all of them needs the north leg to be slighty extended to be level. not sure if any other mount suffer from the same problem.

~MooEy~

chrisyeo · Post by **chrisyeo** » Mon Oct 13, 2003 1:01 am

Just out of curiousity, rather than using smaller counterweights, has anyone thought of just cutting a piece off one side of the weight then welding it on top? That way, it should clear the legs right?

harlequin2902 · Post by **harlequin2902** » Mon Oct 13, 2003 1:21 am

i have the same scope.. the configuration is the same as in the manual: North between the legs, so that was not what was modified (so now we still don't know what is . and i don't think it's possible to shift the north above one leg.. undid my mount and tried doing that after Sam told me before that that was the correct orientation, but... there's some.. blockage...

hannah

Hi Hannah,

Don't worry too much about it, I think that is a small design problem with some of the older EQ 3-2 mounts. It seems like they were 'designed' to be set up that way. I did observe a couple of older Celestron CG4 mounts before and they were like that too.

Our exclusive and newer Antares 'Skyscan 2001', 'G' and 'GP' mounts have had that problem fixed though.

IceAngel · Post by **IceAngel** » Mon Oct 13, 2003 9:30 am

hmm.. as a newbie

i would like to ask.. why not u extend one of the legs of the tripod and increase the latitude to 10 degrees... is that possible??? then the counter weight will be more further away from the legs...
this is just my newbie view.. (usually not going to work)

MooEy · Post by **MooEy** » Mon Oct 13, 2003 11:25 am

err.. usually we wun attempt to compromise the stability of the mount, rather not track properly then have the whole set up topple over and damaging the scope.

actually i dun see much problem having the north in between 2 of the legs, in fact i believe this would actually allow the set up to be more stable by resting most of the weight of the mount head on 2 legs instead of 1 leg, and also avoid the vixen one leg shorter problem.

IceAngel · Post by **IceAngel** » Mon Oct 13, 2003 11:49 am

ooh.. i see.. so if extend the legs.. the whole thing might topple?? wooo... tat's really hurt.. if it was my set, can cry sia

hehe.. thanks for the correction, i learn something new again~~